canvas_files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned tuple (id, name, byte size), which is genuine behavioral information, and '清单' implies a read-only listing. However, it says nothing about permissions, pagination, recursion into folders, or whether all files or only top-level ones are returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the return fields parenthesized, so there is no filler. The terseness comes at the cost of detail rather than verbosity, so it is efficient but thin.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient because it names the returned fields. It is still incomplete on scope questions (folders, pagination, permissions) that an agent would need before relying on a complete file listing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'course' parameter already documents that it accepts an id or name keyword. The description adds only the framing that the course scopes the file listing, which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the specific resource clearly: the file listing of a given Canvas course, plus the fields returned (file_id / filename / byte size). An agent can tell this apart from canvas_courses, share_files, and canvas_upload. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closest sibling, share_files.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than share_files, site_content, or canvas_courses, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is 'when you need a course's files', which the agent must infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.